Depending who you ask, Afterpay Touch Group is either a noble disrupter of our cosy consumer debt market or a monster feasting on the base securities of youngsters (even rumoured to be behind lobby group United Front for Kids Without Gucci).

And the battle for the heart and soul of the investment community has now turned to the research firms painting competing pictures of the teen lender's business model and of its customer base.

Nearly three weeks ago, Afterpay reported its FY18 earnings, its EBITDA of $27.7 million less than the $28.4 million in late fees it booked on paper (as opposed to received in cash). Though that's a whole other story.

The same week, financial comparison website Mozo released a survey of 1000 Afterpay customers, revealing that a quarter were suffering financial stress. To us, the findings were neither surprising, nor damning, for a lender that until two months ago had never even verified the identity of its accountholders, let alone their creditworthiness, before extending them credit.

Still, Afterpay hit back, claiming that "the clear factual errors … and limited scope in [Mozo's] survey call into question its credibility and its accuracy". Rebutting this picture of financial stress, Afterpay claimed that 94 per cent of its transactions are from returning customers [who] do not have any overdue amounts."

Advertisement

Related Quotes

It's curious that this number seems to be sourced from Afterpay's own beautiful set of numbers: Alphabeta, the consulting firm set up by Kevin Rudd's boy wonder economist, Andrew Charlton, and engaged by Afterpay to conduct a rolling survey of 2000 of its customers.

It turns out Mozo engaged a contractor, Pureprofile, to conduct the contested research. Spare a thought, then, for Afterpay director Clifford Rosenberg, who owns options and shares currently worth more than $20 million.

Rosenberg also happens to be a director of Pureprofile, this purveyor of "clear factual errors". With the client trading at a ludicrous 150 times FY19 earnings (while proffering absurd arithmetic on its loan book), Rosenberg must be struggling himself with the dangerously arguable interpretations of events set to unfold in the coming 12 months. Buckle in.